• @PeachMan
    link
    fedilink
    English
    353 months ago

    They considered it, consulted a lawyer, and then stopped considering it, because what the board did was stupid (INCREDIBLY stupid) but it wasn’t illegal.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      53 months ago

      From what I know of the US justice system something being illegal doesn’t really matter in civil court. It could probably be argued that the board didn’t do what was best for the investors, which is what they exist to do. Instead they potentially cost the investors millions of dollars.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        It could probably be argued that the board didn’t do what was best for the investors, which is what they exist to do.

        Incorrect. OpenAI LLC (the traded company) does not have a board of directors. The board of directors actually belong to the parent company, simply “OpenAI”, which is a nonprofit organization – the only thing that they’re beholden to is the OpenAI company charter.

        Here’s a simplified breakdown:

        Board of Directors =[controls]=> OpenAI (non-profit) =[controls]=> OpenAI LLC =[employs]=> OpenAI CEO

        OpenAI LLC is obligated to act in the best financial interest of their shareholders, but OpenAI LLC does not actually have control over who sits in the CEO chair. That power goes to the non-profit “OpenAI” parent company – a company beholden to their board, not shareholders.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          23 months ago

          Aah! That’s more than I knew. Thanks for the lesson! Then it definitely makes sense that they wouldn’t have a case.